• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  I hope it works too sean......too bad we can't get all countries on board with this way of thinking....why do you suppose that is?
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 30, 2009....

  Depends on the country.  Not all countries are the same and that's one thing.  I think Americans (in general) but particularly in the last eight years have had a poor concept of what diplomacy means.  We've had a shoot first and dead men don't ask questions mentality.  We should be talking to everybody and seeing what compromises can be made.  Without waiting for official word from the White House I think we can figure out what compromise Obama made.
   
  Solve this shit or we'll keep on bombing and you know it's easier for you to tell the terrorists from the civilians than it is for me.  So take care of your house or I'll burn it down.

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  The problem in the last 8 years was not that mentality sean....it was the political undermining by the left in this country.....the same kind of mentality that lost the Vietnam war for us.....the Jane Fondas....the John Kerrys....the "useful idiots" as they would be dubbed by the North Vietnamese......had our media and the political left in this country acted like true patriots, we would not have seen the kind of resistance that we saw in the terrorists or in the other "useful idiots" through out the world that put up road blocks to military success.

• SeanRenaud said on May 30, 2009....

  I disagree.  Vietnam was basically unwinnable.  Historically invaders don't win and even if we were invited invaders (which is debatable) we were still invaders.  Just like the Russians could never take Afghanistan even when they started killing women and children by distribuiting booby trapped toys. 

  Jane Fonda for all her evil doesn't have the power to cost us a war.  She simply doesn't and didn't.

  We are by far the most powerful nation on the planet.  With the exception of nuclear missles we can afford to sit back and let the other guy take a swing first and that hasn't been our policy and in most cases it should be.  It's like Mike Tyson hanging out with a bunch of 6th graders.  He can take the worst they can dish out and still put them down.  There is no reason to swing first.

  There are obviously some people that talking to isn't going to help but we should try anyway. 

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  I think this article well sums up what happened in Vietnam, and what could happen in the mid East if we are not very careful.....it is very interesting.  source

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  and btw.....Jane fonda was only one person, but she was the face of a movement....a movement that lost the war.

• SeanRenaud said on May 30, 2009....

  But that article isn't telling us anythign we didn't already know.  Namely that we were winning military wise.  But it doesn't seem to have an answer for where that final blow would have come from.

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  but thats not the commonly held belief.....hardly anyone knows that.....had the left on this country not undermined that war, things would have been much different.

• SeanRenaud said on May 31, 2009....

  It would just have gone one longer.  The underlying fact that the Vietcong would have done the exact same thing the insurgents are doing in Iraq today would not have changed.  It only takes a few guys to keep sniping you and leaving road side bombs. 

  We were utterly destroying them military wise.  The Tet Offensive was a spectacular failure for the North.  But we would never have gotten the last guys out.

• D6fer said on May 31, 2009....

  I disagree......we would have had to maintain some sort of presence there....and would possibly still be there in some capacity, but it would probably be similar to our presence in Japan and Germany......not a bad thing considering the proximity to China......also a win in Vietnam would have held a lot of weight with the rest of the world.....for our allies it would show that we back up our words with actions....same goes for our adversaries......Vietnam was the keystone to the problems that we are against today.

• SeanRenaud said on May 31, 2009....

  We definitely would still be there.  We still have troops in Korea.  There is certainly no reason to believe that 'nam would have turned out significantly better.  I think it's an exageration to claim it's the keystone in our current problems.  Particularly when there are more glaring things like European occupation following WW1 and redrawing the maps, take Iraq which prior to invasion was 3 separtate countries. 

  But you make an excellent point about backing our words with actions.  I would be curious to see how provable it is that we lost the faith of our allies in that move. 

• D6fer said on May 31, 2009....

  I think all of the proof that you need can be personal and anecdotal evidence.....we all know how important it is to back up your words with actions (at least we should know).....those that do, have credibility and a larger circle of influence than those who do not. (with exceptions) There is no reason to believe that this does not work on a national level since nations are represented by individuals not flags, borders, or military hardware.

• SeanRenaud said on May 31, 2009....

  This is true.  But there is a point where you've just become bullheaded.  I respect a man whose words are backed by actions.  I don't respect a man who's words are backed by actions and then when evidence is mounting that the decision he made was wrong he just runs faster proclaiming that I've made a decision and we can never go back.

  Prohibition didn't work.  And we changed course.  I respect the ability to re-assess information and situations and change course more than I do sticking to your guns merely because you fired the first shot.

• D6fer said on May 31, 2009....

  I don't respect a man who's words are backed by actions and then when evidence is mounting that the decision he made was wrong he just runs faster proclaiming that I've made a decision and we can never go back.
  
  Are you describing President Obama here?
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 31, 2009....

  You could make that case if you wanted.  But only in the positive he's admitted he screwed the pooch on a few of his appointees.  The economy has been on a three month run and we're four months into his presidency. 

  He seems to be changing course on Gitmo as his original plan may have been overambitious (though I really hope he pulls that one off)

  So there is no mounting proof his economic plan is a failure and we've yet to see shit one way or another on his foriegn.

  But I was speaking generically not about any individual one way or another.

Comment on "Go Pakistan Go!"

Currently tagged	pakistan Taliban (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment